F-35 Program - General Discussion
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Some F-35 Cost analysis drawn from the Norwegian defence budget and looking at some Finland requests and some UK costs, covering things like procurement, integration of weapons, base costs, training etc.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Well, pollies being pollies, veracity needs to be bent at times, especially with large defence acquisitions that usually aren’t popular with the electorates. Once completed, a slow leak of reality is manageable.
A F-16 looks like a bargain now but in next decade they won’t be viable in contested airspace against 5th Gen let alone 6th Gen which will probably arrive in 20 years or less.
A F-16 looks like a bargain now but in next decade they won’t be viable in contested airspace against 5th Gen let alone 6th Gen which will probably arrive in 20 years or less.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Defense-aerospace are long term, well known F-35 haters.
Over the years they’ve written many stories with their anti F-35 twist added.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess Giovanni got a loan from some anti F-35 group to restart his website. Hadn’t realized until today the site is active again.
Yes they are active again.
Looks like he is surprised that "fly away costs" are different from actual operating costs.
However, the Finnish budget does seem a bit thin and ambitious. 64 F-35A's for $12.5b seems like an absolute steal if its doable.
If they're getting them for that I want some of that action.
Looks as if it's "pay for almost everything" now - 299 euros for an individual subscription. I thought he was good at finding interesting news & if you ignored the opinions the site was worth looking at for that, but certainly not worth £250 a year!
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree there was some decent content at times but at £250 a year, that’s like hearing a starting pistol, run!
Hasn't been updated for quite a while now. I think they have lost the will the fight. Last updates were ~2016 I think..
Obviously in an Australian context, there is no point of fighting the F-35 acquisition, they are here, delivered, operational.
The greatest threat to F-35's acquisitions now are from unmanned platforms. But IMO I see those as more complimentary than replacement.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I think they have re-branded via the Best Fighter For Australia Facebook page. Agree that it's all fairly meaningless now - their favourite hobby horse (the F22) was fielded in penny packets, is out of production and staring down the barrel of replacement, while the RAAF's F35 fleet is a fait accompli. All that remains for them to run on is concentrated bitterness ;-p
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,413
The Plan to Raise, Train & Sustain not on track
1. By 2036 the Pentagon services buying the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) face nearly USD6 billion in sustainment cost overruns that they project as unaffordable because of increasing sustainment expenditures.
3. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., unveiled his “chairman’s mark” of the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act, which included provisions that would pose affordability constraints on how many F-35s the military can buy or maintain at a time. If the military does not meet the affordability targets for “cost per tail per year” — which measures the average price of operating, maintaining and upgrading a single aircraft — the services will not be able to procure the number of F-35s planned as part of the program of record.
4. A Lockheed Martin video on the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) for the F-35. They are trying to keep taffordable, and high-performance by working with the US Navy maintenance depot at Jacksonville, Florida.
1. By 2036 the Pentagon services buying the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) face nearly USD6 billion in sustainment cost overruns that they project as unaffordable because of increasing sustainment expenditures.
2. Affordability concerns are a constant for Singapore, as it affects the total fighter fleet size we can afford. The 2020 JPO estimate of the F-35A sustainment cost per tail per year in steady state is USD7.8 million, up from the USD7.1 million cost estimate in 2018. The F-35A affordability constraint for sustainment cost per tail per year is USD4.1 million, representing a gap of USD3.7 million between projected cost and affordability constraint. THAT IS BAD news from a sustainment perspective. USAF officials told the GAO "[its] only available remaining options ... are to reduce the total number of F-35A aircraft they plan to purchase, or to reduce the aircraft’s planned flying hours."
3. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., unveiled his “chairman’s mark” of the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act, which included provisions that would pose affordability constraints on how many F-35s the military can buy or maintain at a time. If the military does not meet the affordability targets for “cost per tail per year” — which measures the average price of operating, maintaining and upgrading a single aircraft — the services will not be able to procure the number of F-35s planned as part of the program of record.
Last edited:
OPSSG, please let me ask you if these cost overruns can be attributed to inflation, unexpected technical issues, or poor planning. I know that US lawmakers often do not take into consideration inflation for long term projects, and defense budgets have to be created and passed every year anyway. So is the overrun rather an accounting planning problem that may have not taken inflation into consideration or a real problem?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The CPFH has been an issue along with the ALIS fiasco. The planned software upgrade development costs have not been realistic. This is not only applicable to the military but just about every sector. If the 2450 jet fleet costs too much to sustain then what size fleet be will be the big question. Smaller fleet gives a reduced sustainment budget but the acquisition cost goes up if only 1000-1500 jets are ordered, vicious circle.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would be very surprised if LM would sell 1000 software upgrades at the same price as 2000. but perhaps the development price is independent of the number of installs, a rarity in the software vendor universe.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
True, at the end of day, someone at LM had to cost the development out and decide on a price which would be the same no matter what the number of jets is. Spending 5 billion upgrading 2000 jets looks better than 5 billion on 1000 jets, the electorate likes the appearance of value for money.